I write about disruptive ideas in science, technology and culture that change the future, the new discoveries in science and technology that change how we interact with ourselves, society and our planet.
My technology industry experience at IBM, Microsoft and Amazon includes work in account management, software testing management, localization editing and online content production. I have also worked as a consultant in the software and gaming technology space.
My work on technology, science and culture has appeared in publications such as Wired, Ars Technica and Massive Online Gamer, among others. For story ideas, requests to review new technologies or simply to get in touch, please feel free to email me at mpvenables@gmail.com. Follow me on Twitter, Facebook or Google +.

The front lines in the ongoing debate on whether violence in media such as video games and movies causes aggression in children seem intractably drawn. The debate percolates from the hallowed halls of academia to the discussion forums on gaming websites, to the halls of Congress and into the family drawing room with yet another tragic school shooting that occurred at southeast Atlanta’s Price Middle School. The blame for recent shootings in Norway, Aurora and Sandy Hook were all causally linked to video games by intellectually spurious speculation by the popular media, media pundits, and the NRA. Politicians such as Senator Jay Rockefeller have called for more research on this important issue by studying the link between violence in films and video games and aggression. I questioned Senator Rockefeller about his recent press statements on this issue, and asked for his thoughts on the “causality question” raised in recent studies on media violence and aggression in children. My Q&A with Senator Rockefeller appears below.

Wayne La Pierre, head of the NRA, has consistently ignored scientific data that saliently point to the absence of any causal link between media violence and aggression, calling the Second Amendment right to bear arms a “God-given, fundamental American right.” The NRA places the blame for the recent school killings squarely on video games, whose wisdom on stopping violence in schools amounts to this statement from LaPierre: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” The NRA’s stream of unconscious logic continued with the release of an iPhone shooter game on Jan. 14, after previously blaming video games for school shootings.

Wishing to draw from the most recent scientific research on the “causality question” between media violence and aggression, I recently did an in-depth interview with Christopher Ferguson, one of the expert witnesses cited in the Scholar’s Amicus Brief provided to the Supreme Court in Brown v. EMA, formerly Schwartzenegger v. EMA. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down California’s anti-video game law, criticizing the research used to support the law as “unpersuasive.” Ferguson, in my interview, suggested the need for proactive Congressional action on mental health reform and gun control as possible constructive measures to address the issue of gun violence in our school communities.

Despite findings in recent research studies that conclusively refute the causal link between violence in video games and aggression in children, the speculation about such a causal link continues in the political sphere. Senator Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, recently stated,

…Recent court decisions demonstrate that some people still do not get it. They believe that violent video games are no more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons. Parents, pediatricians, and psychologists know better.

Q&A with Senator Rockefeller on the “causality question” in recent studies on media violence and aggression in children, and the need for further scientific research on this critical social issue. I have included selections from the Senator’s Dec. 19 and Jan. 29 press releases below, quotes to which I refer in my questions:

“This week, we are all focused on protecting our children . . . we need to take a comprehensive look at all the ways we can keep our kids safe. I have long expressed concern about the impact of the violent content our kids see and interact with every day . . . Recent court decisions demonstrate that some people still do not get it. They believe that violent video games are no more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons. Parents, pediatricians, and psychologists know better.”

Venables: Your press statement on Dec. 19 appears to suggest there is already a link between video games and aggression, when academic studies have not demonstrated any causal connection with solid, scientific data. Do you believe current scientific studies have conclusively proven a causal link between video games and aggression in children? Your press statement on Jan. 29 speaks of addressing community violence and improving protections against gun violence. Do you view video games as an interactive media form that threatens our communities as a catalyst for gun violence?

Statement by Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa):

“I understand some studies do show there is a causal link between violent content and aggressive behavior, but that proving absolute causality in this type of social science research is very difficult. Importantly, for purposes of public policy, causation is not the right or only threshold for whether we need to tackle this issue. Over my 28 years of looking closely at this in the Senate and speaking with families across West Virginia and experts around the country, I believe there is plenty of evidence that playing violent games and watching violent movies is having a negative impact on our kids and leading to aggressive behavior. Having the National Academy of Sciences, which is a pre-eminent source of scientific research and review, sort through the extensive research that already exists, and identify what still needs to be done, will give us a better handle on how to address the rising aggressive behavior among our kids. We need to look at every possible route to reduce violence in this country rather than limit our options to protect our children and communities.”

The debate will continue before and after the National Academy of Sciences issues it’s report, with each side on the issue of the effect of media violence on aggression drawing it’s line of final causation in the sands of the national debate. I happen to belong to the side that does not believe that interactive media and film cause aggression in children, and have, for some time now, made it my business to review the literature of existing scientific studies to holistically inform my beliefs. I would recommend this practice to Wayne LaPierre and Senator Rockefeller both. Here I’d like to include the last paragraph from the editorial comments that appear after my interview with Christopher Ferguson, because I think it bears repeating, just as violence in our school communities does not.

The nation is in a state of honorable outrage at the piles of recent killings of our school children, and we all remain united in feeling this heavy emotion. But Ferguson’s thoughts on the relationship between the current research on video games and societal aggression provides a very wise cautionary tale for all of us. We should not be so quick to quickly point our moral finger at a ghost cause, heap blame on an external Doody Golem, forced to bear the terrible blame for the killing of children in our schools. Proper civic engagement demands us to consider Ferguson’s counsel. To be a more reflective and better informed citizenry, we are obliged to turn our attention to the true causes of aggression and violence that is happening in our schools. And that means focusing our deliberative energies towards what we must do now — have a national conversation about gun control. Most importantly, we should also be talking about mental health reform. To give these social issues any less credence is to demean our commitment to our own civic commitments as citizens. And in so doing, we would fail our sacred obligation as parents: to protect our children’s very life, liberty and happiness in the classroom. We must all agree on one goal: to rebuild the nation’s classrooms as places of sacrosanct learning for all children, not of dark halls of murder, chaos and fear. We must research, deliberate and establish a consensus on the actual cause of aggression in our schools. And the time is now. How many more school children have to die?

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

It is interesting. I think what in essence is the “profiling” of video games as purveyors of violence, mayhem and decadence goes across party lines. It’s worth remembering Ferguson’s point about moral panic. The important point above all is to get the politicians across both aisles to look at the research and study the data.

If so many parents agree that violent video games are bad for their kids, maybe they should do some actual parenting and monitor which games their kids play. No one wants to take any sort of accountability here.

Games have ratings so that parents can make quick and easy assessments over what types of games their kids are playing. And yet those parents don’t do so, then complain that the games are too violent. It’s ridiculous.

Yes, I agree that parents should accept responsibility for their kids’ actions. One of the problems I’ve always talked about and one that Christopher Ferguson talks about in my interview with him in a previous post is that people want to blame an external influence for when children become violent, because it’s easier to control, and blame for all the “complications” that arise from kids’ aggressive behavior. Parents should bear responsibility for monitoring more closely what games their children play. The ESRB ratings system is somewhat inconsistent and at times vague about how they apply rating for game content, and that whole system could be greatly improved.

But, the overall issue remains that we must talk about what other issues may be underlying the behavior, as Ferguson also mentions, such as mental health issues. And, of course, gun control is an obvious problem that needs to be addressed.

This is an absurd attempt to divert attention from the gun debate. While violent games may “contribute” to more violent behavior in a latent violent personality (though just as likely, they may also provide a release for it… who knows?), NOTHING contributes more to murder on a mass scale than weapons that kill on a mass scale.

Lots of things contribute to a personality disorder, from genetics to environment. ONE thing fires lots of bullets all at once: an assault weapon. What will provide maximum effect for minimum effort is obvious: ban the damn weapons.

Reducing mass murders through psychology or mental health efforts (or even more indirectly through the media of games and movies) will take years and years, and cost a ton of money — and when all that effort is done, what you’ll have is the govt watching over every mental hiccup or threat or odd behavior on the chance that it might become a violent behavior at some point.

Which would you rather have? A govt watching your every behavioral blip, or a select group of weapons made illegal? It’s obvious to me!

Well, in all fairness, Sen. Rockefeller did support the assault weapons ban in 1994, which included a ban on high capacity clips. The problem with attempting to enact such a ban on assault weapons, of course, is that the NRA lobby will do its best to crush the effort, as they see any legislative action on controlling firearms in any way as an attack on Second Amendment rights. In Great Britain, the Firearms (Amendment) Act of 1988 banned most semi-automatic long-barreled weapons, and the Firearms (Amendment) Act of 1997 banned private possession of most handguns having a caliber over .22. In 1997, the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, extended the ban to most handguns with a calibre of .22. But, they don’t have a “right to bear arms” in amendment form like the United States. In any case, I agree that gun control is needed, now.

I believe Christopher Ferguson is spot on: he calls for a balanced approach to the issue. 1). Increase the quality of the research being done in current studies of interactive media and aggression in kids 2). Target the real causes of aggression, while bringing in studies of vulnerable, low-SES populations who may already suffer from mental illness, aggression or psychosis. That’s where data is needed, he points out, and I agree. 3). One important viewpoint Ferguson mentions that is often undervalued is that parents can have so much more impact if they become involved with their kids. Watch them play video games, and even play with them. You are then in a position to see what they are doing, and can talk about the content, instead of simply casting judgement without informed opinion on video game content.

It seems obvious to you because you haven’t thought it through. Making something illegal won’t magically make it disappear.

A law isn’t magic. Just by saying something, it won’t make it happen.

What happens in many countries where weapons are highly regulated, like in Brazil, is that criminals will be armed to the teeth, while the people will be defenseless.

I think the result would be an increase in violence, because criminals would get braver, bolder and more vicious because they know people can’t do anything. Just like it is in countries like Brazil.

It would be interesting if those who defend gun bans would analyze other places on Earth for the results of such measures. When they cite examples, they use a very select few “good cases” and ignore all the rest.

Whether or not video games can be directly linked to violence or aggressive behavior, I think parents and politicians need to stop playing the blame game.

I strongly believe that in the case of mass murders followed by the suicide of the perpetrator that we are dealing with people suffering from severe forms of mental illness, but I am not a professional psychologist nor in anyway employed in that field. This is just my unprofessional layman’s opinion, so if you want to ignore me on those grounds and stop reading this comment, by all means go right ahead.

I think part of the problem with people who suffer from mental illness, myself included, is the stigma associated with such afflictions. There is a disturbing lack of understanding and compassion among the general public as well as a lot of incredibly inaccurate myths surrounding mental illness. I attribute much of this to a lack of public education and to a lesser degree to the way various media such as literature, television, and film distort the facts and sensationalize mental illness for the purposes of entertainment. Now I’m not saying I’m against a bit of fun; I enjoy characters such as Hannibal Lecter and the Joker as much as a lot of folks do. What worries me is the all-too-common naivety prevalent among the general populace. Too many people take their entertainment at face value, believing it to accurately reflect the real world, at least on some levels. “The CSI effect” is an unrelated symptom of this naivety.

Education, while not the solution to the very real and tragic problem of spree killing, is absolutely essential. Remember, there was a time when HIV/ AIDS and even cancer were not well understood by the public at large and plenty of harmful myths circulated about both. There was a time when people believed that cancer might be a contagious disease, passed from one person to another. The advancement of medical science and public education have helped quash that belief.

Before you accuse me of being a bleeding heart, understand that I am not so foolish as to believe that a hug or telling someone you might think is disturbed enough to kill numerous innocent people in a public place that you understand them and their pain is going to do any good. However with better education and the gradual disappearance of mental illness stigma, people suffering from them might not feel so isolated or be afraid to seek treatment or reach out to friends and family for support.

I think government money, whether it’s the U.S. government, the government of Canada, or the government of any nation that dares to call itself civilized, would better serve the happiness, well being, and safety of their public by spending money on mental illness awareness campaigns rather than pissing it away on pointless research loaded with political bias or on railing against what is, for most people who play video games, a harmless pastime.

You raise a most excellent point. One of the points in my earlier post with the Ferguson interview is that we need mental health reform. I couldn’t agree more about the ongoing shameful practice in our society whereby mental illness is stigmatized, misunderstood and preyed upon by the entertainment industry. It’s an unethical, cheap career move by Hollywood at best and the exploitation of human beings at it’s deepest level.

But the problem is that the “blame game” goes on, as the “violence in video games” is a casualty of moral panic, and has become the latest subject in what is becoming a culture war. But, I don’t see it so much as a blame game, but of taking responsibility for your actions. And your children’s behavior. And . . . thank you for your insightful words.

A little over a year ago a big change happened in my life: I became the proud father of a wonderful, bright, happy baby boy. My perspective on many things has changed.

Two things concern me. As a sufferer of mental illness (I was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder in my mid-twenties), I worry about passing a condition which is hereditary, down to my son. Bipolar Disorder is not something that will necessarily manifest itself in my boy, but the possibility is a factor I need to consider. Should he become ill later in life, he will have a very supportive parent who is compassionate and full of empathy. I will not judge or shun him.

The second concern I have is related to teaching my child the difference between fact and fiction, between that behavior which is acceptable to enjoy in various types of entertainment but not emulate and which behaviors are socially acceptable in one’s daily life. Beyond that simple lesson, one which I think a lot of parents are utterly failing to instill in their offspring, will be to help him distinguish between reality and fiction so that he doesn’t fall victim to things like the “CSI factor” where he believes that things like junk science on a glitzy, shallow police procedural are in any way a reflection of how things are done in the real world. The latter I think I’m going to find difficult because I don’t want to be too pedantic or hurt the development of his imagination at a young age.

I think the most important things I can do beyond the two things I mentioned above is to teach him that violence is not a solution to problems and the value of diplomacy. Now excuse me while I step off of my soapbox.

Then congratulations are in order. As far as the mental illness issue, much work remains to be done as far as educating the public about mental illness and teaching tolerance (yes, I believe it can be taught) in schools around this issue, so that children are aware of and mindful of how mental illness affects and changes people’s lives.

I think the issue of responsibility in child rearing includes with interacting with our children’s lives. When instilling values, we can work with kids all the better if we are engaged with and playing with them, not from a distance. Here enters the argument of playing video games with kids. If you play with your kids, you are educating yourself and also allowing yourself an opportunity to explore content. In the end, you will have the opportunity to share your values, to teach right from wrong, and ultimately, take responsibility for the moral direction your child takes in life. And, this is a worthy soapbox to stand on.